What has happened to all of the good Science FICTION writers?

[clovis-man]

In summary, my premise is, I would like to see changes to human behaviour given the same type of rigorous study in science fiction, that is currently expected with regard to physics and astronomy based ideas.

Which I would call "Social Science Fiction".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science_fiction

http://archaeology.about.com/od/fictionstoriesandnovels/a/social_scifi.htm

An idea attributed by some to Ursula Leguin. But its origins are from much further back in the literature. Although as the daughter of Alfred Kroeber, the father of American anthropology, Ms. Leguin certainly has the proper credentials.

Thinking of another author (already mentioned briefly), although much of her work has to do with genetics and the physical sciences, a good deal of the writings of Nancy Kress could fall into the Social SF milieu.

 

[J-Sun]

I agree that the science is of great importance in Science Fiction - it's part of the very name, and I personally much prefer the harder science fiction to space opera. My (poorly explained) point was mainly that there is a difference between the story and plot devices, and that not all plot devices need to be rigourously viable and/or explained.

I probably didn't explain myself well (or just wasn't clear) either. I sort of segued (in the "For me, it absolutely matters," vicinity) from what you were saying to what springs1971 asked about "Does it matter?", so the latter parts weren't actually addressed directly to you. Sorry about that.

Unfortunately, I've lost the original piece where I read the Prof's comments. A few years ago, I suffered the loss of sixty per cent of my books (including 90% of my SF collection) along with a music collection, some of which went back to my grandfather. Needless to say, it was devastating. However, I retained some of my library and, in IAsfm (July 1989, p.17), Asimov made similar remarks in answer to a reader's letter.

Ow. Sorry to hear that. I can only try to imagine what that's like and don't want to. Thanks for the quote - I don't have that issue but I think I see what you and he are saying now. That's basically a take on the "you get one free" idea of certain commonly accepted SF gimmicks and, again, the sort of sacrifices you make. Constructing some elaborate rigamarole that you have to infodump when it isn't the point is similar to the "focus skew" you can get trying to satisfy conventional characterization.

So, to explicitly segue to springs1971's comment - I agree that you wouldn't explain how a car works in conventional fiction (unless you're writing a story about cars or mechanics or the like - which you could do and which could certainly be fascinating) and so you wouldn't do that about a given piece of technology in SF (unless that was the point there, too) but that has to do with the writing style rather than the idea content. It doesn't have to be explained, but it's ideally explicable. In other words, your story notes should probably be vast reams of infodump but not much of that needs to make it into the story.

 

[Connavar]

Well, I did plow through The Commonwealth Saga and enjoyed it for the most part. But the prodigious size of his other works, as well as what I would consider to be unnecessary detail, put an end to my beginning traversal of The Night's Dawn books. Life is too short.

This is what i mean and the answer to moneyspitts question about my lack of taste for certain type of space opera.

Prodigious size is okay if its literary strong SFF by Vance and co. But SF that is for fun reads i cant waste time on bricks like Hamilton. I dont have anything against that writer but his type of SF i avoid. I like smart,serious future exploring sf or scape opera fun that is like Steel Rat or Foundation, Demon Princes by Vance or by CJ Cherryh. I read good space opera but they tend to be shorter and to the point.

My taste in SF is too broad to waste my time on fat,long space opera series. Im earth bound social,soft SF type reader generally anyway.

 

[montypitts]

"fairly mundane every day places here in the US," is where I have been buying Sci-Fi books for over 50 years, Tom.

 

[montypitts]

If I was writing a story based now I wouldn't describe how the car works (not that I could anyhow), just that it got me from here to here in the story. Most of the stuff in my book has a basis in possible science, I just don't explain it all the time. My spaceships are a little dodgy, though, I accept that, but it's also an accepted convention of sci fi that ships fly. also, with the whole E=mc2 debate up in the air at the mo, who knows what it possible, eventually?

Two thumbs up on your definition above.

 

[montypitts]

This is what i mean and the answer to moneyspitts question about my lack of taste for certain type of space opera.

Prodigious size is okay if its literary strong SFF by Vance and co. But SF that is for fun reads i cant waste time on bricks like Hamilton. I dont have anything against that writer but his type of SF i avoid. I like smart,serious future exploring sf or scape opera fun that is like Steel Rat or Foundation, Demon Princes by Vance or by CJ Cherryh. I read good space opera but they tend to be shorter and to the point.

My taste in SF is too broad to waste my time on fat,long space opera series. Im earth bound social,soft SF type reader generally anyway.

CONNAVAR, how would you describe the Asimov Foundation Series?

 

[D_Davis]

Perhaps it is because Sci-Fi relies too much on real science? Sci-Fan can let the imagine run wild, mixing the very ancient with the very futuristic, giving characters impossible powers, etc. Sci-Fi seems to me to be about the PLAUSIBLE in the future.

Some of the best Science Fiction writers of all time barely touched the science associated in their stories.

Phil Dick, Theodore Sturgeon, J.G. Ballard, Bester, Bradbury, etc.

Science Fiction is really a terrible descriptor for this genre we all love. I greatly prefer to think of SF as Speculative Fiction.

 

[Fried Egg]

Some of the best Science Fiction writers of all time barely touched the science associated in their stories.

Phil Dick, Theodore Sturgeon, J.G. Ballard, Bester, Bradbury, etc.

Science Fiction is really a terrible descriptor for this genre we all love. I greatly prefer to think of SF as Speculative Fiction.

But if you think about it, these writers explored many of the 'softer' sciences such as sociology, psychology, etc. Still science fiction.

 

[Connavar]

But if you think about it, these writers explored many of the 'softer' sciences such as sociology, psychology, etc. Still science fiction.

Yeah thats because for SF fans science means physics, other hard Sciences thanks to classic, influential SF authors like Asimov,RAH,AC etc

Social sciences are as important others sciences outside SF lit world.

 

[TheTomG]

"fairly mundane every day places here in the US," is where I have been buying Sci-Fi books for over 50 years, Tom.

Perhaps then things are a-changing in the mundane places department, in that case, and my advice remains the same - seek to order online, where shelf space is not an issue and so all things can be found, not just those judged most likely to snag a passer-by's attention

As I mention, I've never seen anything good in those places, and even the big bookstores don't carry the writings I look for even though those are "big" names in SF, such as Iain M. Banks And Philip K. Dick, but I can find all things online. And once there I think you will find lots of good SF writers still going strong!

So I don't think anything happened to the good SF writers, I think something happened to the street "front end" of book sales.

 

[montypitts]

Perhaps then things are a-changing in the mundane places department, in that case, and my advice remains the same - seek to order online, where shelf space is not an issue and so all things can be found, not just those judged most likely to snag a passer-by's attention

As I mention, I've never seen anything good in those places, and even the big bookstores don't carry the writings I look for even though those are "big" names in SF, such as Iain M. Banks And Philip K. Dick, but I can find all things online. And once there I think you will find lots of good SF writers still going strong!

So I don't think anything happened to the good SF writers, I think something happened to the street "front end" of book sales.

You're probably right...I'm getting old. LOL!

 

[Timba]

Science Fiction is really a terrible descriptor for this genre we all love. I greatly prefer to think of SF as Speculative Fiction.

Yes, I like that speculative fiction approach myself. I have become quite a fan of alternative history and I think that fits rather nicely under the label Speculative Fiction.

 

[Connavar]

CONNAVAR, how would you describe the Asimov Foundation Series?

Foundation was my first SF series and made me fan of the genre. It was not series about characters, emotions but a great series of ideas, social science,hard science based stories. Its how i like space opera or stories in space. It was good storytelling. I rate it highly specially the early books.

 

[D_Davis]

But if you think about it, these writers explored many of the 'softer' sciences such as sociology, psychology, etc. Still science fiction.

Good point.

 

[Connavar]

Good point.

I agree with you about Speculative fiction name for SFF stories. I dont care if im reading SF, Fantasy,science fantasy, historical fantasy, alternate history or whatever.

The thing is SF or Fantasy sounds much cooler than Speculative fiction. Otherwise i dont care what my fav genres or subgenres is called.

I never read for genres,subgenres. I dont read social SF because i like softer scienes stories. I read them because Philip K Dick and co are quality authors.

 

[j d worthington]

You know, Heinlein was one of the first (if not the first) to suggest this as a name for the genre rather than science fiction, largely for similar reasons... unfortunately, it never really caught on -- though in the 1960s, it came very, very close....

 

[D_Davis]

And really, isn't all fiction speculative?

Didn't Gene Wolf say something like, all fiction is fantasy, some is just more honest about it.

 

[Fried Egg]

And really, isn't all fiction speculative?

Didn't Gene Wolf say something like, all fiction is fantasy, some is just more honest about it.

In the strictest sense of the word, yes. But I always feel that SF, fantasy and horror are usually more specualtive, more concerned with pushing the boundaries of what we think we know is true. Which is why I'm drawn to those genres much more than I am others.

 

[j d worthington]

In the strictest sense of the word, yes. But I always feel that SF, fantasy and horror are usually more specualtive, more concerned with pushing the boundaries of what we think we know is true. Which is why I'm drawn to those genres much more than I am others.

Well, they are certainly more drawn toward the fantastic than the realistic, at least. Almost as if, as a whole, the writers and readers take the same view as Bierce did of realism in his Devil's Dictionary:

REALISM, n. The art of depicting nature as it is seen by toads. The charm suffusing a landscape painted by a mole, or a story written by a measuring-worm.

 

[Galacticdefender]

Leviathan Wakes is a pretty good, recent (2010 I think) space opera that relies on a fair amount of real science.